Scriptural proof for...........

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Anti-Alexandrian, Aug 22, 2004.

  1. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    On several occasions,I've asked for Scriptural PROOF supporting the Alexandrian position--that is to say,Scriptural PROOF for the word of God coming from Egypt..As proof has been proven by Scripture that the word of God has it's "roots" in Antioch as per Acts 11 & 13,and can be found in reformation Bibles(based upon Syrian/Byzantine MSS.) in a multitude of languages.

    Seeing how the burden of proof seems to ALWAYS fall upon the Bible beleiver,I thought it would be fitting to allow others to provide Scriptural support for their position.

    Ok,let er' rip...
     
  2. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps you do not understand when scriptural proof is and isn't required for something.
     
  3. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,I understand just fine.And it IS required..

    Just answer the question...
     
  4. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, if you understood it you would not have asked the question in the first place.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    We might ask YOU for any Scriptural PROHIBITION against Scripture's being copied in Alexandria and distributed worldwide. There's no Scripture FOR or AGAINST Scripture from Alexandria.

    And...Please provide Scripture showing that the KJVO is the ONLY Bible believer.(English)

    Seeing how the burden of proof seems to ALWAYS fall upon the Bible beleiver

    The reason is that the English language has had several BVs in use ever since God first presented His word in English. There was little prob for several hundred years...THEN...in the 20th century, a group of people began campaigning for the KJV to become the ONLY "official" BV in English, basing their campaign on a book written by a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL, stretched further by some less-than-honest authors who re-worded the original misinformation slightly & tried to conceal the fact that it'd come from a SDA official. Problem is, every one of its premises has been PROVEN FALSE. Therefore, given the originality of the KJVO doctrine, which is NOT found in Scripture, we demand EVIDENCE of its veracity. The KJVO has presented the doctrine...therefore the KJVO has the burden of PROVING IT TRUE. And so far, he/she has failed completely.
     
  6. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    The reason is that the English language has had several BVs in use ever since God first presented His word in English. There was little prob for several hundred years...THEN...in the 20th century, a group of people began campaigning for the KJV to become the ONLY "official" BV in English, basing their campaign on a book written by a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL, stretched further by some less-than-honest authors who re-worded the original misinformation slightly & tried to conceal the fact that it'd come from a SDA official. Problem is, every one of its premises has been PROVEN FALSE. Therefore, given the originality of the KJVO doctrine, which is NOT found in Scripture, we demand EVIDENCE of its veracity. The KJVO has presented the doctrine...therefore the KJVO has the burden of PROVING IT TRUE. And so far, he/she has failed completely.
    --------------------------------------------------

    This entire paragraph is incorrect. My understanding of this issue comes from God. I never even heard of this SDA person. My understanding of this issue does not come from men, but God revealing the truth to me from the scriptures. The modern versions have altered/changed the true words of God. This is a FACT. You need to come off the label of "King James Version" and look to the words of and in the label, and then just maybe you will understand. This is not version against version. WE are talking about the very words of God in our language to which have been ALTERED/CHANGED/OMITTED in the modern versions, to which God warns not to do.


    Please give us your scriptural support, that God would allow errors in his word of truth, the scriptures? You have yet to provide it, and you never will because God has said the OPPOSITE of this.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  7. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle, perceived errors in some versions does not make another version inerrant by default.
     
  8. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Michelle, perceived errors in some versions does not make another version inerrant by default.
    --------------------------------------------------


    There is no perception in error. The errors are EVIDENT. It is rather your REJECTION OF and IGNORING the FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE of the errors. In other words, you excuse away the errors that are evident. You have not one time shown to anyone, how these errors are acceptable, nor have you provided any scriptural support for them. And you will not be able to, because God has clearly made them evident, and has warned against them.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  9. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Proof you will not get. Blather will abound!
    The KJB is THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. The other versions contain bit and pieces of it mixed up with humanism and philosphy.
    I'll stick with the VERY.
     
  10. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle, perceived errors can still be real errors. Let me reword for you, as you are missing the point:

    Michelle, errors in some versions does not make another version inerrant by default.
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    psr.2, then "THE VERY WORDS OF GOD" did not exist until 1611. Unacceptable.
     
  12. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    psr.2, then "THE VERY WORDS OF GOD" did not exist until 1611. Unacceptable.
    --------------------------------------------------

    You are the ones saying this. NOT us. You are the ones guilty of believing the very words of God were hidden until the 19th century BASED upon your belief that the versions that came from such, are the very words of God. God's words have ALWAYS BEEN WITH THE FAITHFUL, not hidden away in some monastery, or the Roman Church for centuries, only to have to heretical/apostate/gnostic men resurrect it according to their false beliefs and methods. In fact, you don't even believe that we have every word of God accurately in our language, and believe God allows errors in his word of truth, to leave us up to our "own" wisdom and judgement, as to what God's word is. You believe man provides you God's words. I believe God provides, and has provided them without ERROR. Otherwise, God's word of truth, is no longer truth, but lies and half-truths. The Holy Spirit leads us to ALL TRUTH.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  13. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I did not say the words of God did not exist before 1611.
    See how Satan twists things; see Gen 3 for example.
    I will tell you this. I believe the VERY WORDS OF GOD in entirety do not exist in any version other than the KJB SINCE 1611.
     
  14. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "You are the ones saying this. NOT us. "

    Your belief implies it, and you have never explained (rationally, anyway) how this is not the case nor explained how differences (like the ones in the Gevena/KJV comparison thread) are not errors in the Geneva but are errors in other versions.

    Michelle said "You are the ones guilty of believing the very words of God were hidden until the 19th century BASED upon your belief that the versions that came from such, are the very words of God."

    That is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what we believe. It amazes me that you don't even understand what you are debating against.

    Michelle said "In fact, you don't even believe that we have every word of God accurately in our language, and believe God allows errors in his word of truth, to leave us up to our "own" wisdom and judgement, as to what God's word is. You believe man provides you God's words."

    I get real tired of people like you telling me what I believe. You apparently have no idea what I believe. So cancel your telepathy lessons, and get your money back - they aren't working.

    Michelle's credibility rating: down another 10 points.
     
  15. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    psr.2 said "I did not say the words of God did not exist before 1611."

    You imply it. You have no explanation how they could, in a way that doesn't contradict KJV-onlyism. Am I wrong? If so, explain to us where the words of God were before 1611 in a way that doesn't contradict KJV-onlyism.
     
  16. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The trouble you are having natters is that you have been exposed to too much dynamic equivalence
    (or how ever it's spelled) therefore you are always looking at what is implied rather than the actual words.
    Those of us who know that the KJB is the very words of God cling to every word and therefore are not looking at everything with a slant.
     
  17. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    You imply it. You have no explanation how they could, in a way that doesn't contradict KJV-onlyism. Am I wrong? If so, explain to us where the words of God were before 1611 in a way that doesn't contradict KJV-onlyism.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Your problem in understanding this issue, is because you are blinded by the shades of a false label, and all that comes with it along with doubt, to which you refuse to take off and let the light of the truth shine in.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  18. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Satan is the master question asker isn't he?
    Yeah hath God said.. and 6000 years later man is repeating the same line.

    Where in the bible does Paul say what he is writing is scripture?
    Answer...nowhere.

    The thinking behind where does the KJB say in the KJB that it is the bible is one of the stupidest questions I have heard in a while.

    Where does the bible say that a car is a car?
    HMM must not be a car then. DUH
     
  19. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anti-Alexandrian,

    Can you show one shred of scriptural evidence validating scripture which comes from England?

    Let 'er rip!
     
  20. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "Your problem in understanding this issue, is because you are blinded by the shades of a false label, and all that comes with it along with doubt, to which you refuse to take off and let the light of the truth shine in."

    Either that or you simply refuse to provide a simple explanation that I can understand, but prefer to be spiritually condescending instead. How noble.

    psr.2, same for you. A simple answer to the question of where God's were before 1611, without contradicting your view on preservation, would be wonderful.

    psr.2 said "The thinking behind where does the KJB say in the KJB that it is the bible is one of the stupidest questions I have heard in a while."

    No, it is not stupid. It is entirely valid. For those that believe the KJV is inerrant have made a doctrine out of it. Doctrine needs to come from scripture, does it not?

    psr.2 said "Where does the bible say that a car is a car?"

    Exactly what is wrong with AA's original question. It is not about doctrine.
     

Share This Page

Loading...